"But I own that I cannot see as plainly as others do, and I should wish to do, evidence of design and beneficence on all sides of us. There seems to me too much misery in the world. I cannot persuade myself that a beneficent and omnipotent God would have designedly created that a cat should play with mice."
-- Charles Darwin, Letter to Asa Gray

Sunday, August 06, 2006

Handling the Truth

This is one of those days I wish a thousand people read this blog so I could get a thousand suggestions.

The problem is: Which political prognosticators are the most accurate? Which pundits and/or pollsters are most often correct?

With the rise of the Internet -- and doesn't that phrase sound like something from a George Lucas backstory? -- it has become simplicity itself to aggregate six or a dozen websites to provide an overview, a pulse-taking, of politics in the U.S. But one -- meaning me and maybe you -- is quite naturally drawn to those sites that confirm one's hopes for the future. And that can lead to confusion and disappointment.

I mean that in 2000 and 2004 I spent a lot of time reading pundits and pollsters who gave the most positive view of Democratic prospects. I enjoy a good pep talk, but I don't want to be self-deluded. There is a practical application of having better data. My wife and I don't give vast amounts to our favorite Democrats, but we do give something, and accurate polling/predicting help us direct our contributions.

But the real point is that I do follow the "horse race" aspect of politics, whatever my reason, and I would like to see as clearly as possible -- if only for my own satisfaction -- who's ahead and who's behind as the horses come into the stretch.

In the IEM, investors put up real money to buy shares in political outcomes. (If you need to know more than that, click through.) The point is that in terms of recent presidential elections, the IEM has been slightly more accurate than the an average of the best-known polls in predicting not just who will win or lose but what the actual vote share will be. As I understand it, the theory is that if a sufficient number of people "buy" shares in a possible political outcome, their collective wisdom is considerable because the act of investing money with the possibility of personal gain, or the simple satisfaction of I-told-you-so, allows them to differentiate between what they want to happen and what they actually think will happen.